IN JULY OF 1979, Ronald Reagan, then eighteen months from the presidency, was taken to see the North American Aerospace Defense Command, better known as NORAD. The underground facility, jointly run by the United States and Canada, is carved inside Cheyenne Mountain, near Colorado Springs. In one widely cited account of the visit, many on the tour were visibly awed by the scale and seriousness of the operation. But when Reagan asked what the US could do to stop a nuclear missile, the answer shocked him: nothing.

As the story goes, Reagan was told that all NORAD could do was track incoming warheads and provide information for retaliation. During the flight home, one aide remembered, Reagan “couldn’t believe the United States had no defense against Soviet attack. He slowly shook his head and said, ‘We have spent all that money and have all that equipment, and there is nothing we can do to prevent a nuclear missile from hitting us.’”

Reagan agonized over the idea of the US being vulnerable. “We should have some way of defending ourselves,” he concluded. His vision eventually took the form of the Strategic Defense Initiative: a plan for futuristic weapons in space—lasers, interceptors, armed satellites—that would render nuclear missiles “impotent and obsolete.” SDI was a promise as sweeping as it was speculative, and it ultimately petered out under the weight of its technical limits and astronomical costs.

After Reagan left office, his successors, George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton, quietly but significantly pared back SDI, largely shelving the space-based part and concentrating on land-based interceptor missiles that could meet a much more limited threat. About two decades later, George W. Bush went forward with this version of the idea. His system was designed to defeat not thousands or even hundreds of weapons launched by a peer adversary but to stop a handful of missiles from a so-called rogue state. Though something workable was produced, it, too, fell short of ambitions (only about half of its highly scripted test interceptions have worked).

Now Donald Trump has unveiled his own iteration of Reagan’s old aspiration: the Golden Dome. He claims it will cost $175 billion (US), be completed by the end of his term, be 100 percent successful, and thus be capable of “forever ending the missile threat to the American homeland.” The plan has notable supporters, mainly Republicans, defence hawks, and industry players. Few credible experts believe the hype. The American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank, estimates the cost could rise to more than $3 trillion (US) and the system could take decades to build—if it can ever succeed.

  • Nils@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    9 hours ago

    It seems like USA just wants to bomb things without the fear of retaliation.

    But it is most likely another US scam. It is sus every time they start with:

    • psst kid, here is what they don’t want you to know…
    • you should be afraid of …, they are here to hurt you
    • it is for the kids

    The first question to ask is “Will the Golden Dome prevent US from bombing Canada?”, then it is protection money.

    • definitemaybe@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      8 hours ago

      The article, thankfully, is much more detailed and nuanced in its analysis.

      I agree that a space laser satellite defense network is beyond current technology and politically fraught, but agree with the article’s conclusions that Canada already is emerged in the currently practical land-based defense systems, and should continue to contribute in that more limited project.

      The article also goes into the diplomatic party Canada can play in this, building off the Middle Powers Davos speech, and I agree with that points, too.

      Anyway, I suggest you RTFA (so to speak). It’s a good one.

  • panda_abyss@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    20 hours ago

    They really should pay us handsomely for it if they need it.

    We don’t need it, and what landlord pays rent to their tenants?

    It seems we have all the leverage here.

    Edit: also every one of those claims is bull. That’s no way this gets done in 2.5 years after planning, not at that cost. Look how much they spent on Israel’s system, now multiple that by millions.

  • Reannlegge@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    13 hours ago

    They want Canada to pay for Alaska that is all covering us in Trumps piss coloured dome.

  • Lemmyoutofhere@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    18 hours ago

    Well we already kinda are with our new over the horizon long range radar system that was just announced.

  • SamuelRJankis@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    21 hours ago

    Has anyone ever brought up the fact that most of the Canadian population centers is pretty close to America and if they didn’t want their northern cities have substantial collateral damage they’d have to at least protect those portions.

    • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      20 hours ago

      Why haven’t you realized that one country paying the country most likely to invade them to handle the first country’s defense is a bad idea?

      Like, at any moment a future US president can just turn off Canada’s part.

      Relying on America for defense doesn’t make any sense logically

      • SamuelRJankis@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        19 hours ago

        Why haven’t you realized that one country paying the country most likely to invade them to handle the first country’s defense is a bad idea?

        Probably because you made this up and I didn’t even slightly suggest we pay them. Not in that comment or ever.

        • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          19 hours ago

          My bad then.

          I assumed your comment was in reference to the article you commented under.

          You meant something else, and believed what you meant was obvious. And now you’re very upset about it.

          No sweat, there’s a very easy way to make sure this doesn’t happen again.